Outside the Garden

Friday, February 15, 2013

Just trolled through Google and chose some of my favorite cartoons which were poking fun at the TSA to show how dramatic the reactions have been to the Gestapo tactics employed to keep America safe from terrorism.

Well, I wish I could take credit for it, but since I have only had 164 page views in this new blog, I suppose that is too much ask. However, it is mildly ironic that only days after I advocated mass, organized civil disobedience at TSA Checkpoints around the country, that we hear in an article from the Washington Times that TSA may have been conducting drills for what to do in case of a mass shooting, ala Aurora and Sandy Hook. The primary word from TSA upper eshelon: save yourselves.
Here is where we really find out what TSA's responsibility, training and motivation is. It isn't for passenger protection andit isn't for crime control (they aren't a legal law enforcement agency). The primary goal of TSA is to control the sanitized environment on the other side of the check point. That's it. All of the nice homilies that you will hear from TSA Bob's blog are exactly that.

Perhaps if we can't get the agency dismembered...(I am still hopeful we might)...then maybe we can start by reforming the agency, beginning with sensitivity training, better knowledge of TSA policies (agents receive only 80 hours of training, whereas the Border Patrol/Customs receives nearly three months), and the return to metal detectors. If one recalls there has been no terrorist incident when they were involved since 9/11. I was sharing with my school age daughter that I could remember a time where I could have just walked her right out to the gate to watch the planes land.

Now that airports have literally become defacto satellites of the government's arm, the TSA is now moving out into much more tricky areas. Reports are surfacing that TSA will be planting people on busses and on trains, even in states where it is legal for people to carry fire arms concealed. These kinds of drills and policy changes bode poorly for the lay person who simply wants to get from one place to the other without someone saying "papers, please".

Obviously, if you have read my previous blog's I am a proponent of the belief that the government is not beyond creating false flag incidents to further its will and purposes, especially if it believes that the citizenry will be angered by it. There is no proof or even evidential theory that the government is planning such an event for a TSA mass shooting. The Washington Times' assertion is exactly that...a conjecture without proof. However, under the circumstances it wouldn't be beyond the scope of reason to envision. Even the report itself could put the idea out there.

I have already received several snail mail request inquiring about mass civil disobedience and I am saving them until I have enough to reach a critical mass that will significantly and nationally impact TSA. But don't think this won't dissuade some from mass protest and civil disobedience. I don't think that anything gets out to the public about TSA that it doesn't want out there. Every bit of information released and withheld is tactical. This is why my repeated requests for the actual SOP of enhanced pat downs has been rejected or ignored. Every inquiry I have made (or my associates) has been referred to TSA Bob's blog which only gives you the party line. Apparently, if we know how you are allowed to intimately touch you ahead of time, you might be able to find a secret hiding place that they can't touch. It's important to remember the rules according to TSA's on guidelines.

According to TSA guidelines, before the enhanced search, the agent must tell you exactly where they are going to touch you. Remind them that TSA guidelines say that they can only search where one could reasonably hide a weapon. The end run around that is that agent's have the discretion to make that call. There is no standard by which they may search (at least, not one we are allowed to know). However, mention it anyway. Showing you have equal (and perhaps greater) knowledge of TSA regs will probably serve you well.

Photograph or film your search. TSA regulation 2.7 says that filming is permissible during searches. They will tell you not to or order the airport to make you stop. If you are inside the search area, airport regs are not applicable...TSA's are. In the sanitized and unsanitized areas airport authority is applied. Most airports only have regulations regarding commercial filming and photography which isn't applicable to private citizens filming. There is a great YouTube video of some opt-out people being defended by a policeman from airport and TSA thuggery in Albany.

Know as much as you can about where your rights end and TSA's begin. The recent re-release of the Phoenix Freeze Drill is a perfect example. In it, TSA agents commanded people outside of the search checkpoint to freeze, which everyone did. Well, TSA isn't a law enforcement agency and has absolutely no jurisdiction outside of the checkpoints. The request was unlawful and those people didn't have to do that.

I always print out thirty or so copies of the latest TSA regs and pass them out at the airport. This will draw attention to you, but once again, it is completely legal and will allow your fellow travelers to be better informed. TSA will continue to punish travelers who opt out of the back scanners. I opt out because I have metal in my right leg from two surgeries, so I know that I am going to be physically violated anyway. Small resistance can be brought by knowing your rights ahead of time. Sometimes I have been aided by the fact that I will ask an officer to come along and make sure that TSA behaves itself. I know that my quoting their regs at them will cause them to be resentful and having an officer around can mitigate some of the nastiness.

The bottom line on this subject is this. No resolve will be satisfactory accept the elimination of the odious agency and extensive reform of airport security. If something does happen at a TSA checkpoint in the form of a shooting of sometime, you can be sure there will be such an outcry from the government about gun control and the TSA about being armed. If the latter happens, that could be the first step towards a domestic civil war that would never be called that. It would be called domestic terrorism as those of us who refuse to surrender the Second Amendment oppose those who would seek to abrogate it. I will spend as much time exercising my First Amendment right to bring down TSA and protect the next amendment. Watch this story carefully.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Within moments of news from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's office that the manhunt for Jordon Dorner was over, did the doubters and theorists rear up to question aspects of the investigation that continue to beleaguer it. Conveniently, the body was burnt beyond recognition and as of Valentine's Day morning, could still not be identified. Apparently the fire at the little wood cabin in kindred to the conflagration that took down the twin towers.

As always, the LAPD will take a bit of heat for their use of the drones, and their heavy handed methods in the manhunt which wounded two people and compelled citizens that were black or drove blue pick-ups to identify themselves with Tee shirts and bumper stickers that they weren't Dorner.

I believe that the LAPD issues, including the possibility that they were exuberant in their efforts to incinerate Dorner, ala Waco, are all smoke and mirrors. Every time I am exposed to a lone wolf assassin, especially one with some sort of military background, I am prone to be suspicious. I will let that set for a minute to something of more import.

One group of people who are delighted about interest in the Dorner case are those who are moving for stronger gun legislation. Also those who are under fire for allegedly perpetrating a hoax at Sandy Hook. These issues are both aided by the Dorner case.

The Vice President and his "gunfighters" have top be secretly ecstatic about the fact that a citizen has taken hand guns and automatic weapons and substantiated the need for greater gun control. Look a the "danger" presented when they aren't controlled, in a state that has one of the more stringent policies on guns.

The case and the controversy around the LAPD also turns attention away from Newtown Connecticut, where the unrelenting independent media and bloggers have been continuing to keep the pressure on the media and officials of the continuing phalanx of errors and misinformation that keeps getting pointed out. The media's blitz against the conspiracy "truthers" has been unprecedented in video journalism history and wasn't helped by Anderson Cooper's green screen gaffe (not CNN's first btw) when interviewing a Newtown victim's family member...though we wonder how she got to Midtown for the interview.

Already, Anderson Cooper has called on LA Times reporter Joel Rubin to defend the tactics of the police at Big Bear. Rubin said in a televised interview on Cooper's show that he had reviewed the monitored and recorded police scanner of the raid and concluded that there was no malice or wrong doing. He commented to Anderson that he believed that the "burners" that he police were referring to were tear gas canisters, which, on the surface is plausible. However, he didn't speak directly to the more inflammatory (no pun intended) comment made..."get the gas: burn it down". The fact that the fire department was nearby but made no attempt to extinguish the blaze is damning evidence as well.

You can be sure there will be plenty of MK Ultra/lone wolf scenarios put out by the intrepid blogosphere. Already you can see that the media and others like Anderson Cooper are already making sure that what you hear will be sanitized and canonized as the truth. Here are a couple of other things you can mark (and mock me later if I am wrong)....

----There will considerable scrutiny about the possibility that Dorner (or whoever is identified in there) was pushed back inside after attempting to flee the fire.

----There will be one or two very credible threads about MK Ultra in this case.

----There will be controversy surrounding the autopsy of the incinerated body. Already CNN has posted articles in its health section on how to identify bodies that are so burned.

----Anderson Cooper might here of this and call me an Internet Troll lurking in the dark corners of the Web. If he only knew the truth about me. (wink to you, AC)

----This event will stem the controversy about Sandy Hook and Aurora but will galvanize gun control advocates

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

An article recently written by Hunter Stuart of the Huffington Post attempts to poke holes in the growing concerns that the Sandy Hook shooting hasn't been reported as accurate and that there may be a more sinister plot by a collusion of the media and the government to push an agenda of stronger gun control.

Without taking a position myself (though I confess, even as a journalist, I have a healthy skepticism about any government account), I was struck by how flimsy the article was at being anecdotal in its attempts to turn away suspicions by lay people that the shootings may have been staged in some way. The issue is really if something is true, wouldn't the empirical evidence be what is used to debunk the theories? Why would selective points that are everybit as theoretical be considered sufficient to debunk. I am more concerned as I have written in numerous places without my psuedonym about the seemingly wreckless performance of the media in this crisis that has actually fed the fires of doubt in the first place. If the media had been skeptical out of the gate and then came around and said that they were wrong, that would be one thing. However, the media's attempt to insert itself into the story by defending its position, its performance and trying to debunk the theories is not the charge of an impartial press.

Salon.com, Huffington Press and Anderson Cooper of CNN have all made it a point to go out of their way to attack the conspiracy theories that have been spawned. Instead of reporting the rise of the doubters and not making value judgements about them, these outlets have gone so far as to characterize people who espouse or question the official account as "internet trolls" that are "lurking" to find some flaw or item they can sensationalize.

I want to make it clear that I would embrace the media presenting empirical evidence...like public release of the autopsies with photos...which up until recently was legal according to the Freedom of Information Act in Connecticut.

Let me address the Stuart's article point by point....

Sandy Cox got her script wrong....
In Andrea McCarren's brief interview with Sally Cox, Cox reported that the Mrs. Lanza was a kindergarten teacher that she had known very well" Stuart rightly reports that McCarren did not use Lanza's name. However, Newtown isn't New York City. I'm sure that Cox, a longtime resident would probably know every kindergarten teacher there and which ones had adult sons that she would know. But even if that wasn't the most logical assumption (which it is), the fact that because Cox wasn't asked specifically about Lanza doesn't mean that she initially wasn't. Remember, every homicide detective will tell you that the freshest information is that which is the most true. Even if you accept that Cox may have been wrong...it is not empirical data. It is another theory that doesn't necessarily debunk the first theory. Also, Andrea McCarren has not corroberated that an error took place or Stuart would certainly have published.

Adam Lanza didn't use an assault rifle....
Here again, media backpeddling is used as a mitigation for what was initially being reported as true. Remember, the Connecticut State Police are on film correcting the media that there were four handguns used. While, I will concede that seeing one photo or video of a long weapon being drawn out of a car (that isn't Adam Lanza's...a point not refuted by Stuart), that it doesn't mean that he might not have had one. However, the initial reports from law enforcement...the earliest and freshest and therefore, usually most accurate, stated handguns. This is corroberated by the fact that there are no survivors that saw Lanza with a rifle. Additionally, from a gun owners personal experience, the Bushmaster .22 that he alledgedly had is a somewhat indiscriminate weapon with very small caliber bullets. There should have been a remarkably larger amount of survivors with .22 caliber injuries. In a panic, children are going to run in a panic. Fast moving targets in an excited environment for an inexperienced shooter means that he shouldn't have had such a large kill ratio. The Aurora Co. shooter didn't have the success that Lanza had with a better weapon and a more target rich environment.

Also (and what would really debunk this) where did the gun originate from. Surely that can be traced and verified by the press. Point being, that what officials release later doesn't mean that the theory is debunked since the theory is based on those officials being unreliable. Initial reports therefore get greater gravity as they should in any homicide investigation. Point neither confirmed or debunked.

Adam Lanza died the day before....
While I find this to be one of minutia compared to some of the more damning questions about the account, I can address it as I did before. Stating that Newtown officials may have "made a mistake" falls under the auspice of officials being questioned about being part of the conspiracy. Small town officials could easily be bullied into obedience. Might have made a mistake is not empirical evidence that debunks the theory.

Memorial pages were up before the shooting...
While I have another journalist who is following up on people in the Newtown area who are witnesses who can corroberate that they actually were on the pages in question on the day before the incident but are afraid to go public, I would like to address this pragmatically. I have been posting for over ten years and I have contacted Yahoo, Google, and MSN. They confirm that while mistakes can happen on postings, that they are 98% reliable in their accuracy. Further, that has been my experience...I have never had an error on any of my postings. One page might be almost good enough to debunk this concern about the account. However, there were several pages that all had errors. Acham's Razor says that isn't a coincidence even with the margin of error. Not Debunked!

Adam Lanza had his brother's ID...
This issue is also minutia in the greater account, but for arguements sake I will address it. The statement that authorities didn't confirm that it was his brother's ID, doesn't mean that it wasn't true. Why else would they arrive at Ryan Lanza's door so quickly and put him into custody? Might be wrong isn't empirical evidence.

Multiple shooters....
I am the first to admit that it is easy to manipulate video to enflame a position and alot of theorists have been parking on the chase in the woods and the detention of what is now being reported was a parent who was fleeing the shooting. Even if this was true, it doesn't address witness reports (before authorities arrived) of two shadows passing by. Also, if the man fleeing was a parent who ran when he heard shooting inside the school, why were there police pursuing him. That account flies in the face of the timeline since the official account was that the shooting was all but over by the time the first responders arrived. Not Debunked.

Crisis Actors....
This is hardest to prove or debunk. The Eric Parker video clearly seems contrived and the thought that a parent that has lost a child within the last 18 hours could look as composed, chuckle with officials seemed too contrived for even the most seasoned journalist, much less the lay public. However, that doesn't prove the theory. It doesn't debunk it either. The coincidences of people involved in Newtown looking like participants in the Aurora shooting doesn't help. Emelie not being in class photos the previous two years, the possibility that he photo with the family may have been photo shopped. Photo errors of other kids made by ABC channel 7 and the Daily Mail don't help the media's credibility here. Point being...theory not debunked.

There are even more much more dramatic theories that aren't addressed here. Here is my favorite.
---Why, if when the first tv media arrived they were kept in a staging area some 1/4 mile away because there was concern for a second shooter around the school, was the remainder of the 600 students exposed to the danger of that shooter by walking them that long distance to the firehouse? This fact has been confirmed by Kent Pierce of Channel 8 in Danbury to me. All of the students were evacuated before TV media arrived.

---Other questions....where are the rest of the Newtown Bee's Shannon Hicks' photos of the evacuation and how was she able to get so close to the school?
....Why were there multiple witness reports of droves of federal vehicles in downtown Newtown on the way to the school a full half hour before the first 911 call came in?
....Why has the media not questioned the issue of emergency drills being scheduled that day by the school that day as confirmed by Facebook and other online sources?

The bottom line is truth and evidence. A theorists is not obligated to have that evidence when questioning official inconsistencies (Though some have very effectively...see YouTube videos on Google Earth shadow analysis of Shannon Hicks' photo of the evacuation). Debunking however does require empirical data and so far, Mr. Stuart's anecdotes would fail in any court of law.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Alot of what I am going to put on here is also posted on the West Seattle Blog. I love that part of the city and have an apartment on Genesee Hill, near West Seattle Stadium.

It's time for the little people to rise up and disrupt TSA to the point that public opinion is so odiously heavy that even Congress must capitulate to the will of its employers.

According to a Zogby poll, 61% of air travelers oppose the new procedures that have been invoked by the TSA, most notably the enhanced pat-downs. 50% believe that the pat-downs go to far. What would make things easier for both the TSA and the travelers would be if the government would publish what a legal pat-down procedure is and what isn't legal. However, so many sketchy searches are already under the bridge that if the actual procedures came out it would open TSA to an onslaught of litigation by disgruntled, overly fondled flyers or parents of children that received inappropriate touching during the process.

I remember flying into Heathrow during the hieght of Irish terrorism threat during the mid 70s. I received a full body search, that was infinitely more respectful, private, and appropriate than even some of the most modest of TSA searches. As I have sought to discover what the actual SOP for TSA agents in regard to enhanced body "pat downs", the TSA website blogger, BOB, has been reticent to share that most important of information.

The fact that the public doesn't have the privilege of knowing what their rights are in regard to how far the TSA can go during a pat down is painful and makes Rand Paul's effort to scrap the TSA and produce a traveler's Bill of Rights so necessary. I think understanding your individual rights would be the very first thing. Maybe scrapping the Patriot Act would come next.

The fact is, though, I don't believe that Congressman Rand's noble effort will come of anything because the Congress is not properly motivated to change the policies that are so fascist. It is going to take some very bold and provocative civil disobedience to get the Congress to obey their constituents, even though the 61% (a landslide in any election) seem to be complaining on deaf ears and have their online demonstrations relegated to the purvue of conspiracy theory.

My biggest issue is with the invasive pat downs.

Here we see a normal pat down that is being received amicably by the traveler. There is no doubt that in any other circumstance, this kind of undue, intimate touching would be considered sexual assault. 61% of the people consider this sexual assault and dissapprove of the practice. That number is insufficient to sway the TSA.

There are a couple of precedents that could be taken in the form of civil disobedience. It would require a little bit of personal sacrifice financially, emotionally, and possibly, legally. However, such demonstrations would shake the nation.

First, civil disobedience of the TSA must stop being isolated and individual. These anecdotal incidents are opportunities for TSA Bob to debunk any wrongdoing by the agency and marginalize the individual. Therefore, the demonstration must be massive and localized each time for optimum results. The desired result should be the disruption of normal TSA procedures that draws attention to them and the odious things that they are doing.

Second, those acts must be secret and guerrilla in nature. If the TSA has opportunity to prepare, they can bring law enforcement in, even if you haven't committed a crime. Preparations must be off the grid...i.e. not on the internet or phones. Snail mail is good, local word of mouth is best. Much like public flash performances they must be grandious and impactful.

Third, those committed to the demonstration whether disobedient or not, must completely understand their rights in regard to TSA searches. Because the demonstration must be recorded, it should be arranged that as many people as possible film the incident. You will be told not to record. Ignore this, TSA regulation 2.7 clearly says that as long as you are not interfering with normal procedure, you can film or photograph the process. They do stipulate that Airports may have different rules. My research has indicated that airports only have rules about commercial photography and not personal. As long as whatever you film is not going to create commerce for you, according to the Supreme Court's definition, it is NOT commercial. If your demonstration is effective enough though, there will be lots of filming and photography.

Another very important note, especially for large demonstrations, is that TSA is forbidden to physically restrain or detain someone. It is written into their regs. They will call the police to detain you. However, if the onslaught of the demonstration is so huge, it would be impossible for the few police on duty to stop the number of demonstrating passengers. I recommend at least 50 people participating...over a hundred is much better. The more you have and the more coordinated you are, the better your result will be.

I have two ideas. One is demonstration...one is disobedience.

The first is 100 people arriving for security check all at once. Each one opts out and instead of allowing the pat down, stripping completely naked for the TSA agents. A precedent has already been set and a man who did this was exonerated from wrong doing, as being cooperative with TSA to a flaw. This would require some bravery but it would be a great thing to do and if it happened across the country at ten or 15 airports, it would not only disrupt the TSA, it would be seared on the American media's concious. It wouldn't be one person opting out. It would be the harbinger of TSA's real popularity.

The second is somewhat more risky and is truly civil disobedience.

The same hundred people dress in disguise and identically, (see V for Vendetta) and arrive together at a security check point. Everyone has their phone cameras out to record TSA reaction. Instead of submitting to identification...the entire group walks right through the checkpoint into the terminal. There will be a response by the police but they won't be able to restrain everyone. Disguised people run into the restrooms and doff their disguises and come back into the terminal looking like everyone else who just got off the planes. It is important to note that the camera part is important. You want to see if TSA will abide by their rules on physical detention. There should be an expectation of some arrests, but getting everyone will be nearly impossible. The more people who participate in this, the more impacting it will be. Unlike the nude protest, this should be isolated at one airport at a time. Each time, a different airport, slowly, organically, bringing the pressure to Congress and the TSA to obey their employers, the American people.

I suggest these because I have seen the fiber of the American traveler starting to unravel. They are prepared to take back their liberty. This would be a great TeaParty project. Once the TSA is leveled then we have precedent and a foothold on recovering our evaporating rights.

Friday, February 8, 2013

There is a disturbing pattern of media and social network censorship centered around the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown Connecticut. As a writer and a strong advocate for the journalist in our country and the absolute right of the press and free speech, I wanted to immediately run to the aid of my comrades in the light of the massive amount of conspiracy theories that have erupted from the incident. Most of those could have been avoided by good journalism. However, when I began to contact people and visited the Sandy Hook area myself, I began to see patterns of behavior in the media that leave me without surprise that the theories have sprouted.

However, the most damning indictment against the media has been the from two media sources...Facebook and CNN.

Early in the beginning groundswell of the hoax theories, mostly centered around the viral video on YouTube, people began to comment on their Facebook pages. Those who were in support or at least questioned the account were subject to suspension or expulsion from the social network. While I am not the greatest advocate of his work, Alex Jones' of Info Wars.com had his account suspended for 24 hours as well as the MotherEarth.com for advocating a pro-gun position. In addition, celebrities who tweeted or commented on Facebook in anyway about Sandy Hook that was outside the official account have faced furious backlash from the public and had to back down from their positions to protect their positions, including a major league baseball player and a female UFC fighter. This is a small sampling of names of accounts suspended provided by Infowars.com...

This has since prompted me to continue to research more closely, talking with some of my former associates in the press and in the literary community. I have not been encouraged by what I have discovered. There was a pattern of non-response that is uncustomary, even at the smallest level of media, where repeated requests by a writer friend of mine of the Newtown Bee have been ignored.

Most suspicious though has been CNN's almost epic vendetta to defend itself about its coverage of the Sandy Hook incident and its liberal position on gun control since the event started. During the 9/11 crisis, conspiracy theorists were marginalized but generally never made it into mainstream media, even when coming from credible, established journalists like Theirry Messant. However, CNN's reaction to the Sandy Hook Hoax video has been veritably titanic compared to its responses to 9/11 "truthers".

Anderson Cooper is on the front line of the counter-assault against the Sandy Hook Conspiracists. First, shortly after the shootings, Cooper called to task the Florida Atlantic professor (who taught a class on conspiracy theory at the school) for questioning the official account. Frequently, since then he has devoted several segments of his show to the subject.

Then things got a little more interesting when an interview with a Sandy Hook victim's relative was discovered to probably be a green screen interview that was staged and not filmed in Newtown. The fodder for this was the numerous green screen fake interviews that CNN has been caught doing before during the Gulf War, setting the clear precedent. In the video which was immediately removed from the CNN archive, Cooper turns his head to his guest and as he does, his nose dissappears from the picture, a frequent hazard of quickly edited or non-edited green screen use (see any of a number of similar weatherman instances on line).

One can question these things without espousing a conspiracy theory. This is simply abberant behavior for an impartial, fact-based media.

Another anomaly to compare with the 9/11 reactions was the fact that Google is replete with debunking sites when one googles anything about "Sandy Hook Hoax" or "Sandy Hook Conspiracy". There are two fold reasons for this, I believe. One is that the media, having learned the lesson of failing to manage the internet when they had a message to espouse in regards to conspiracy theories such as 9/11, the death of Bin Laden, or Aurora Co., made a point of making sure that debunking sites on Google were prominent, outnumbering conspiracy sites listed almost 2 to 1, though there are veritably thousands of well hit sites that question the account. Instead sites like Salon.com and other debunking sites have been listed alongside the scandalous Hoax video on YouTube. Additionally, the media has made a point of strong comments about debunking the theories, something that didn't happen during the 9/11 until Popular Mechanics published its questionable book on the matter.

The bottom line is that the media's behavior is the best gasoline for the fire of conspiracy theory in the case of Sandy Hook. As an aged scholar, I am not one to be swayed by the winds of fringe thinking. However, when a abberant pattern of behavior starts to develop, it is time to pay attention less to what happened and more to the why.